Dismissed

Alok Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2019A482/10993/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court refused to quash criminal proceedings under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act initiated via Section 482 Cr.P.C. due to strong prima facie evidence. The court directed a 45-day moratorium on coercive action if applicants surrender.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of charge sheet and proceedings refused; 45-day moratorium on coercive action granted conditional on surrender.

Alok Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10993 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Alok Singh And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Sahu,Sudhir Kumar (Chandraul) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jagdish Prasad Patel,Mohammad Khalid,Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record.

¶6

This Court vide order dated 4.4.2018 has referred the matter to the Mediation Centre in order to enable the parties to make amicable settlement between them, however, the Mediation Centre vide its report dated 10.10.2018 has reported that the mediation has failed and the parties could not reach at any settlement.

¶7

Heard Shri S.K. Chandraul, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Mohd. Khalid, learned counsel for O.P. No.2. and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing of the charge sheet as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 742 of 2017, under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act P.S. Khakhareru, District Fatehpur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Khaga, District Fatehpur.

¶9

As per the allegation made in the F.I.R and the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. it is alleged that the O.P. No.2 was married to the applicants no.1 on 1.2.2014, however, after marriage the applicants started demanding additional dowry and for non-fulfilment of demand of additional dowry, the applicants used to torture and maltreat her and beaten her and also has turned her out of her matrimonial home and is not returning back her Stridhan.

¶10

The contention of counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present application has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.

¶11

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the

¶12

applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶13

At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 , the prayer for quashing the charge sheet and entire proceeding is refused.

¶14

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within forty five days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).

¶15

For a period of forty five days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶16

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 16.12.2019 R

Alok Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shailendra Singh Yadav and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Samsuddin Siddiqui and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Azam Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Veer Pal Singh @ Veer Pratap Vs State of U.P.and Another

Sachin and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shashibala and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another